Scott Adams still thinks Donald Trump is winning, bigly

By virtually all measures, Donald Trump’s presidency is a disaster, lurching from self-inflicted crisis to self-inflicted disaster.

His inauguration day crowds were dwarfed by massive protests the next day. He’s delivered on none of his signature promises. Investigators are snooping around his administration and his businesses, and talk of impeachment is in the air. The White House is in perpetual chaos, with demoralized staffers leaking embarrassing details to the press almost hourly — when they’re not literally hiding in the bushes to escape questions from the press. Every day brings new evidence that Trump has no idea what he’s doing.

But to Dilbert-cartoonist-turned-dillweed-pundit Scott Adams, everything bad is good for Trump, whom he sees as playing a masterful game of 4th-dimensional chess that most of us are too dumb to understand. Whenever Trump pulls some new boner, Adams is there to tell us, like Pee Wee Herman after his famous bike fail, that Trump “meant to do that.”

It’s been a while since we last checked in on Spinnin’ Scott, so I thought I’d grace you all with some of the highlights of his Trump-related Twittering over the last month or so.

In late April, Adams suggested that Trump’s opponents were running out of steam, or at least air:

I actually got mad at AoT for not being dark enough. I don’t know if you’ve been following it up to now but it has become a political court drama soap opera.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you!

Eta:

Also, I am surprised this hypothetical committee you mentioned doesn’t have Yoshiyuki “Kill ’em All” Tomino on the list.

He practically invented the “Everybody Dies” anime. Man was a genius.

I wish people would let me film movies in which everyone dies – after fighting absolutely heroic battles against overwhelming odds, during which you were convinced that everyone was definitely going to make it, and you got acquainted with their families, their lovers, their friends…And then everyone dies.

I feel like that would do everyone a great deal more use than Superhero Movie #69.

I actually heard about and watched a few episodes of Akame Ga Kill!, but I was afraid it wasn’t actually going to be good. It was just so ridiculous and hit all my fetish buttons in all the right ways, so I assumed that it was going to be some low-quality silly stuff.

It really has everything I like and look for in an anime, but that in and of itself made me nervous at first.

What is wrong with me? When did I become a jaded Anime watcher? Holy shit, what am I doing with my life.

ETA:

But, yes, on your recommendation, I’ll give it a shot and lose myself to the fetishistic pleasure.

Hi people. And let’s also mention how Trump made a deal of selling multibillions worth of arms to Emirates. Didn’t he say it was Clinton who created the Isis? Not that she acted very wise back then, with the Syria crisis.

Pick a name, and stick with it. Making it obvious that you’re sockpuppetting is a pretty clear violation of the rules of troll club, dude.

In 2008, [Dave] Sim sent out a self-written form letter to individuals who had sent him mail, detailing his disagreement with being called a misogynist and disenchantment with what he perceived as a dearth of support in refuting those claims to his character. Contending that society perceived misogynists as the “lowest, subhuman form of life in our society”, he mentioned that few, if any, people had defended him, allowing him to be called “the lowest, subhuman form of life in our society with impunity.” Sim’s letter ended with an ultimatum, requesting that those who wished to receive his return correspondence reply with a letter or online posting and the statement, “I do not believe Dave Sim is a misogynist.” All others were asked not to attempt to contact him again.

Hi again. Sorry, lol, also for failing to introduce myself, but I wanted to share a thought at the moment, about the incredible inconsistency of Trump politics if any of us had some doubt. Trolling is quite far from me and I find it quite laughable especially sockpuppeting and would never change nick without making it clear I’m the same person :). I just wanted to contribute and I was just undecided with which nick to take, that’s why I deleted the other message, or at least I thought so. You can delete the double if you prefer.
Flip flopping not only on Syria but on not warmongering in general and worse off the colossal deal with the very people who armed fundamentalist and pushed salafism and bigotry across the western muslim world, which if I remember, in past was on its way to secularization.
Have a nice day and nice to meet you all after long lurking. 🙂

The example you gave there is one of the parts of Trump and his supporters’ hypocrisy that I find the most infuriating.

Flipflopping on a lot of political issues (and social ones too) indirectly affects people’s lives, but one could potentially understand the cognitive dissonance.

When it comes to literally changing, after one is elected, one’s entire approach to war, they are literally putting lives in danger through their attitude to means that everyone can be in no doubt at all will cause not just death, but mass death.

It also shows more than other flip-flops that they are willing to play with the memory and thought of violent death.

@Nparker
Thanks. What you say is quite on point, let’s also remember that he got elected also by basically saying Clinton created the Isis and that she was the psychotic warmonger, for helping rebels which turned out to be radical islamists, not all but they hijacked the protest, like in Egypt, also part of them possibly coming from the Lybic chaos. Even I agreed very partially and cautiously, with part of that, not ad hominems and he was and still is clearly more psychotic. Even though I don’t agree with her about the Ucraine and Syria, but Trump pretended to be different and took those votes because of that.

On Iran he flopped multiple times on the very campaign too.https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016/Iran
“The deeply flawed nuclear deal Hillary Clinton secretly spearheaded with Iran looks worse and worse by the day. It’s now clear President Obama gave away the store to secure a weak agreement that is full of loopholes, never ultimately blocks Iran from nuclear weapons, emboldens our enemies and funds terrorism.”
Time before, in July
“Phares said, “No, he’s not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States. He is a man of institutions. But he’s going to look back on it the institutional way. He’s said, so far that he doesn’t like this deal and that it was poorly negotiated. Once elected, he’s going to renegotiate it after talking through it with his advisers. One of the clear possibilities is he will send it back to Congress. The reaction of the Iranian leadership will be the next phase. So he is not going to implement it as is, he is going to revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran or with a series of allies.”
and many others U turn.
On Ukraine, his main divergence with Clinton, he kept it more consistent, for nowhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/

Pretending they are the reasonable part of Islam after a campaign which scape goated and criminalized most of the resident muslims as guilty by association with terrorism and against western values ^_^. I understand diplomacy, but diplomacy is not dowright flattering them, criminalizing Iran, which even actually helped fighting Isis, veiled threatening them of war, while and selling billions worth of arms to real jihadist government. Almost a part of truth in that discussion, though, in that a part of the far right which voted for him has a very similar conception of women.
He passed from accusing Clinton of helping rebels destabilize Syria, to accusing Obama (which followed a more moderate politic than her, imho) of being too weak with Assad!

On the other thread I might point out the contraddictions of Incels supporting Trump, but also terrorists if they target the “stacies” as they call them. But at the same time calling people cucks if they mourn the muslim “incel bomber” which drown at the sea, then who’s the callous one with no compassion for males “incels” the feminists or maybe themselves?

Oh, right, I forgot, sorry and I even read many comments about this aspect, so I should’t have, right. Of course used not literarily, I meant to use the term going for Trump logic :). Not to insult people based on clinical diagnosis or alleged one, on pills, etc, even more so for people suffering more serious problems.

Well I don’t know about that, I’d say it doesn’t make it better because I shouldn’t have used it and I immediately realized why. Trolls and bullies use such insults in a vile way, to deem people inferior based on things they wouldn’t even have fault of and don’t control, even if those were true, first because they shouldn’t be insults in first place and are as such ad hominem irrilevant to the discussion.
I’m open to the possibility that how I used could have been even worse not knowingly, not sure if I expressed what I meant by “going for Trump logic”, which of course doesn’t mean sharing it. But I admit the mistake as I said. And realized it indeed felt iffy and out of place, a bit forced, compared to the rest of my message.
I hope we’ll get along, from now on, indeed language is important and we all should pay more attention to it, starting from myself in this case, of course.
Peace .

Then take my word for it. Using “crazy” and synonyms metaphorically is worse than using them literally. I’d explain why since you clearly don’t know already, but I’m pretty burned out on this topic tonight so I’ll refer you to the commenting policy.

It’s no problem, don’t worry :). I didn’t take it as a personal attack, especially seeing a long story where even long time regulars have been reminded, You don’t owe me the explanation, but nor even need it because, well I knew that rule since long and recently read the policy again, but thought about it superficially when I wrote, somehow. I know that intent, however it counts, can’t be an excuse even though I’m not ableist, but as said, although the “fair” use is so widespread it still might conserve an ableist stigma with “crazy” and such. Basically I thought I was inserting that word in a context in which him and his supporters typically used it, against her, it’s not that I myself wanted to use it directly, even metaphorically, but, my bad, it came out clumsily. More like a way to wonder how would anyone seeing a let’s say “deranged” or “narcisistic” over the top behaviour on her, would not see it tenfold in Trump, but now I’m aware that might indirectly have enabled their logic, by saying that about him, in that they are indeed ableist and often sexist all around in such remark.
I’ll pay more attention to such words and how they are used in which context.
Sorry if I might have expressed it badly in words, here, I’m Italian and I’m also quite burned :). Good night (which will come later, so good evening, in case).

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here